Comment: Email tax faces user backlash

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 13 Apr 2006 at 15:42

AOL has stated that subscribers' images and links aren't disabled when an email arrives at a recipient, suggesting that anyone who doesn't pay the fees will see their branding stripped out.

'Paying a third party in order not to have my publications messed with seems a little bit too much like a Sopranos episode,' said Rich Ord, chief executive of business-to-business email marketing company iEntry. 'As publishers, we need to ask ourselves, does AOL have the right to distort our publications and damage our brands unless we pay? As an AOL customer, don't I have the right to get newsletters that I subscribed to delivered unaltered?'

AOL had originally said it would discontinue its impressive Enhanced Whitelist once the Goodmail scheme was up and running, but under the weight of criticism the company has now U-turned and will continue the Whitelist while it tries to wean mailers onto the certified mail. Even this move has been pounced upon as proof of what many people fear - that the plans were motivated by profit rather than spam prevention.

'This is proof that this has nothing to do with spam and everything to do with money,' said Ord. 'The AOL Whitelist is hand-picked and consists entirely of double opt-in publishers. If AOL has determined that these emailers aren't spamming, why is AOL encouraging them to sign up with Goodmail? Of course, the answer is money.'